Remote Viewing -- similar to Clairvoyance, but involving the mind “traveling” to a remote location (in space and/or time) in order to observe objects or events,

Telekinesis -- movement of objects at a distance with the power of the mind, and

Telepathy -- communication of thoughts or ideas without the use of known senses.

All of these potential abilities or talents are defined in the dictionary with the disclaimer of “supposed” or “alleged” attached to each definition.In other words, Oxford and all the other repositories of Language definition are not likely to be advocating something which would eliminate the need for language, and by extension, themselves.

But is it true to say that ESP is bogus (“sham; fictitious; spurious; false; fraudulent”)?

To answer this, we can resort to the “scientific method”, whereby based on Assumptions and observations, we can arrive at potentially valid inferences and/or conclusions.For example, we assume:

1.There exists a distinction between the physical body and the soul or spirit [This is highly philosophical, but if you believe in an afterlife, then you’re already there!] In this regard, "Telepathy is particularly controversial because it challenges a central dogma in the neurosciences -- that brain and mind are identical. If the dogma is correct, then it is nonsense to propose a nonsensory means of exchanging information at a distance." Despite the dogma, telepathic experiences have been recorded throughout history, and their occurrences today appears to be just as prevalent as they were millennia ago." [1]

2.The soul or spirit continues to exist after the physical body has ceased to function (either temporarily or permanently) [Still looking good -- unless, of course, you’re an atheist], and

3.The soul or spirit is not physical, but exists in a non-physical condition.

We might then observe that:

The physical body and the soul/spirit are interconnected, with the physicalbody operating under the directives of the soul or spirit.

If the above is true (a notably significant “if”), then we can infer or conclude that:

There is a non-physical means by which the non-physical soul or spirit directs the body, said means being something not involving physical senses.

In other words, telekinesis -- and by extension, ESP -- is real.Q.E.D.

Now that we’ve dispensed with any possible argument -- that is to say that “Q.E.D.” means: “Thus, it is conclusively proven!” -- we can now...

Okay, fine.For the enduring skeptics (who, incidentally, seldom endear themselves to others), check out the results from Princeton, Stanford, and a host of other allegedly credible sources.See also The Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration (or SSE), or the Institute of Noetic Sciences (founded by astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell).

For example, IONS [1] notes that studies on the subject demonstrate that "telepathy is not 'mind reading' because thoughts are very rarely perceived; that the effects are subtle, and only rarely reach conscious awareness; and that some commonly reported experiences may look and feel like psychic phenomena, but are best accounted for by more mundane explanations like tricks of percepation and memory. Theorectical explanations for telepathy have lagged behind the growing body of experimental evidence. While adequate theories are likely to remain elusive for some time, developments in physics have provided some intriguing clues. In particular, the experience of telepathy is reminiscent of quantum entanglement (QE). QE refers to correlations that can arise between isolated physical systems under special conditions -- correlations that defy the predictions of classical physics."

While it is true that "quantum entanglement as presently understood is an exceedingly fragile state that requires conditions quite unlike the noisey environment of the human brain," it has also become apparent that "generalization of Bell's Inequalities -- a mathematical analysis of quantum mechanics that led to the concept of QE -- results in forms of QE that are highly resistant to noise; that concepts like 'quantum repeaters' and 'entanglement purification' are being vigorously pursued as practical means of extending the times of entangled systems; and that clouds of trillions of atoms can be entangled at room temperature." [1] The latter allows for QE to be sustained in living tissue, while more practically, "research provides evidence that roughly 1 in 15 pairs of unselected people show above-chance, positive EEG correlations."

For the hard core skeptics -- most of whom do not use scientific rationale or logic -- it should be obvious that they cannot be convinced by mere evidence or fact and thus can safely be ignored.Basically, who really cares about what they allegedly think?

However, for that rare skeptic who does use science in a valid manner to dispute claims of ESP and the like, -- i.e. something considerably more advanced than shouting “hogwash!” or its equivalent -- one needs to be inclined to seriously consider their argument(s).Unfortunately for even these rational skeptics, the argument that something does not exist is by far the most difficult one in science, and can never be conclusive.What is perceived as Magic, for example, is almost always science that has not yet been fully understood by the perceiver.But it’s very, very real.Sorry about that.

One example of a typical skeptic’s method is provided by a recent report on dowsing (the ability of someone to find underground sources of water with the use of so-called dowsing rods).The report, presented at a meeting of the SSE (see above), discussed the results of a group of twenty, self-proclaimed “dowsers”, who were examined in a controlled, scientific test as to their ability to effectively locate pipes containing water in a field of numerous buried pipes (most of which did not contain water).

On average, the results did not show any statistically significant deviation from pure chance or dumb luck!Eighteen of the dowsers did not, in fact, demonstrate any real talent at all.However.Two of the dowsers had extraordinary results, accomplishing their task in a very statistically significant manner.In other words, based on the two “real” dowsers, dowsing made a credible showing.

It is not generally wise to select one’s data in order to arrive at a scientific conclusion.But in this case, the results of the 18 can be ignored on the basis that they were not, in reality, true dowsers.Meanwhile the results of the 2 were sufficient exceptions to the proposed hypothesis that dowsing is not real, that it must be assumed that dowsing is, by this report, real.Even so, the conclusion of the researcher was dowsing was not shown to be real in the experiment.In effect, the researcher ignored the data of the 2 true dowsers.

This technique is often used to discount everything from Astrology to ESP, but is simply scientifically insupportable.This is where the “hogwash!” truly begins. [Dowsing, incidentally, probably derived its name from the Chinese spiritual discipline, The Tao (from the Tao de Ching), the latter being pronounced “dow day ching”.]

It is also probably worth pointing out that "there is less evidence for superstrings [one of mainstream science's current favorite darlings] than there is for ESP." In fact, there is no experimental evidence for superstring theories, or for the other increasingly exotic 'theories of everything' posed in theorectical physics." [2] And yet, all the learned papers being published in physics journals on superstrings... and nothing on ESP. Hmmmmm...

Finally, As Peter and Helen Evans have said, "Practically speaking, your subconscious doesn't know the difference between you and everybody else." Thus, any communications between the two or many of you is almost an automatic assumption.

For an even more light-hearted approach to the subject of ESP, consider the stage play, Perceptions.We promise not to report your momentary departure from reality.After all, all the world is Illusion.No kidding.OR simply return to Communications, Media, Education and press onward.(Assuming you can find the button for “onward”, which below, is cleverly and cunningly disguised as “Media